Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352960›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Reliability and construct validity of a composite pain scale for rabbit (CANCRS) in a clinical environment.

Penelope Banchi, Giuseppe Quaranta, Alessandro Ricci, Mitzy Mauthe von Degerfeld

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Gastric dilatation and volvulus in a 5-year-old intact female Holland lop rabbit.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Topical Long-Acting Buprenorphine in New Zealand White Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effects of Intratesticular Lidocaine in Pet Rabbits Undergoing Orchiectomy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effects of Human Observer Presence on Pain Assessment Using Facial Expressions in Rabbits.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ultrasound-Guided Saphenous Nerve Block in Rabbits (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Penelope BanchiC.A.N.C. (Centro Animali Non Convenzionali), Dip. di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6061-4889
Giuseppe QuarantaC.A.N.C. (Centro Animali Non Convenzionali), Dip. di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro RicciDip. di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4131-2900
Mitzy Mauthe von DegerfeldC.A.N.C. (Centro Animali Non Convenzionali), Dip. di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2884-3360
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A composite pain scale for assessing and quantifying pain in rabbits (CANCRS) has been designed merging the Rabbit Grimace Scale (RbtGS) and a scale including clinical parameters (CPS). Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were assessed for CANCRS, for RbtGS and for CPS, in order to test their potential to detect pain in a clinical setting. Rabbits (n = 116) were either hybrids or purebreds and they were independently evaluated by two raters, who could be veterinarians (V) or veterinary medicine students (S). Score intervals determined four pain classes (No pain, Discomfort, Moderate pain and Severe pain) that matched presumptive pain classes associated with some pathological conditions. A chi-square test was used to assess the construct validity of the scales by checking how frequently scale results and presumptive pain classes matched. Sixty-nine patients were evaluated by one V and one S, whereas forty-seven rabbits were assessed by two V, in order to test inter-rater reliability. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test reliability of the scales, whereas Cohen's kappa tested inter-rater agreement for each parameter of the CANCRS. Construct validity results show that CANCRS and RbtGS efficiently reveal pain (P ≤ 0.05), while CPS does not (p > 0.05). Inter-rater reliability was very good for both CANCRS and CPS (ICC 0.88 V-V, 0.94 between V-S; ICC 0.97 V-V, 0.91 V-S) and good for RbtGS (ICC 0.77 V-V, 0.88 V-S); therefore, CPS reproducibility was better between veterinarians and students than between veterinarians. Inter-rater agreement between veterinarians and veterinary medicine students was moderate to very good for all the parameters included in the CANCRS (Cohen's kappa >0,60). In conclusion, it is possible to state that the CANCRS has construct validity and it is a reliable tool for use in clinical practice, when coping with many rabbits with morphological differences. It is easy and fast to use and enriches the RbtGS with some clinical parameters that should be monitored during any clinical examination, allowing for capture of the multidimensional aspect of pain.

Indexed as

AnimalsObserver VariationPainPain MeasurementRabbitsReproducibility of ResultsVeterinary Medicine

Identifiers

PMID32352960
PMCPMC7192371
OpenAlexW3022881614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.